Shoemaker's book represents a crucial culmination and new bench mark in the study of the ancient Dormition/Assumption traditions for myriad reasons.



For one, Shoemaker quite convincingly exposes and refutes some of the fundamental flaws of very noble prior studies on this issue: Cothenet; Mimouni; Jugie; etc. Shoemaker also brings the convincing (yet less cohesive) works of Wenger and van Esbroeck to fruition by creating a work that effectively delineates and characterizes the diverse origins of the ancient Christian traditions about Mary's fate in one pertinent volume.



As the author himself notes in the preface (and reiterates throughout the book), he felt compelled to write a volume establishing these origins with some reasonable measure of clarity before tackling his chief goal: a work exploring the cultural and social impact of these traditions in late antiquity, particularly for Byzantine Christians. It is imperative that he finish this work.



The book is quite user-friendly to scholarly readers, even those not terribly familiar with the topic; Shoemaker's wise inclusion of several translations of the early narratives helps facilitate this.



Of particular note is his divergence from the contentions of Danielou, Bagatti, Testa, etc. that the earliest dormition trads emerged within some hypothetical Jewish-Christian milieu. Shoemaker has blown that theory out of the water for good, I'd say. His own conclusion--that the Book of Rest trad, for example, emerged in what was probably some 3rd-century Christian backwater-community tinged with both Gnostic and proto-Orthodox brushstrokes, is far more convincing, but could have been more fully elaborated. A comprehensive commentary on the Liber Requiei text itself would have been most helpful to the author's cause. It is asking a lot, but a full commentary should have been included with the translation.



Also helpful is the author's careful examination of the historical growth of veneration of Mary in Palestine in the early 400s, and how the various ancient churches and feasts dedicated to Mary in and around Jerusalem were connected to the very sudden appearance of Dormition narratives/motifs in the late 5th century. In this respect, however, Shoemaker hedges his bets (like Epiphanius in the 4th century, when confronted with the issue of Mary's final fate).



Indeed, Shoemaker gives startling short-shrift to the tomb-church, and to the obviously sudden "appearance" of a Mary's tomb-church in Josaphat--an appearance that can almost be pinpointed by the lectionary dates he provides for other, far more considered Marian churches/feasts, not to mention the whole business with the mercurial bishop, Juvenal. One gets the sense that Shoemaker did not want to put himself on the line, here: The tomb of Mary made a very sudden appearance, seemingly just before the Council of Chalcedon, and was clearly associated with Juvenal to some important, memorable degree. It is just after 450 that the various narrative legends of the dormition--some of which were clearly already in existence among certain Christians long before--begin to find an increasingly eager audience.



Shoemaker spills much ink (again, quite convincingly) to demonstrate that the dormition beliefs did not "appear" as a direct result of anti-Chalcedonian sentiment in the Churches. His biggest achievement in the whole work is the refutation of that now untenable "myth" and the assertion that the dormition-legends actually were embraced mostly by Christian circles eager to heal the breaches caused by Chalcedon. It's a superb discovery and his case is iron-clad. Presumably, this is the sort of contention that will have even more impact in a book dealing specifically with the socio-cultural status of the traditions.



For all that, however, it may have behooved Shoemaker to at least ponder what seems obvious, i.e. if the Council of Chalcedon was not the trigger and/or welcome-mat for the dissemination of these legends, then the jarringly sudden "appearance" of the tomb of Mary near Jerusalem just before 450 (surely a coup in the eyes--or ambitions--of Juvenal) must have been an enormously influential catalyst. Again, Shoemaker does not even touch this obvious idea, and it's a bit glaring, because he practically sets it up.



Otherwise, the work is of the highest order. Impeccable in its research and consideration. Without question, it must reign as the new standard on the subject and a potent scholarly reminder that the dormiton/assumption legends do indeed belong to the strata of truly early Christian tradition. Shoemaker's follow-up to this seminal work is eagerly anticipated.